Written Answers Thursday 13 April 2006

Scottish Executive

Disclosure Scotland

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what charges will be made for disclosure checks for applicants (a) applying directly to Disclosure Scotland and (b) applying via the Central Registered Body in Scotland; whether these charges have changed and, if so, by how much.

Cathy Jamieson: From 1 April 2006, the cost of applications to Disclosure Scotland will be £20. This replaces the previous fee of £13.60 that has been in place since April 2002. Scottish ministers will continue to cover the cost of disclosure applications for volunteers working with children and adults at risk. These applications are processed through the Central Registered Body for Scotland.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will identify and publish all the reports that it or the Lord Advocate have commissioned in the last 10 years in respect of the veracity or reliability of fingerprint identifications provided by the Scottish Criminal Record Office.

Cathy Jamieson: I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-23155 on 20 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

  In relation to reports published by the Lord Advocate, I have asked the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC to respond. His response is as follows:

  I do not hold a central record of reports commissioned in response to challenges to fingerprint evidence.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether those within the Scottish Criminal Record Office involved in the misidentification of Shirley McKie’s fingerprints in the Marion Ross murder case in Kilmarnock in 1997 are still providing, or are eligible to provide, fingerprint evidence in court.

Cathy Jamieson: The fingerprint officers involved in the court presentation of fingerprint evidence in the Marion Ross murder case are not providing and are not eligible to provide fingerprint evidence in court.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken by the Scottish Criminal Record Office to identify mark Y7 from the Marion Ross murder scene of January 1997.

Cathy Jamieson: Mark Y7 is on the Scottish Fingerprint Service Latents Database (which is the database of unsolved crime scene marks). This database is checked regularly against fingerprints taken from arrested persons. Because the mark was taken from the scene of a serious crime it will remain on the database until it is identified.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many officers within the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) in 1997 mistakenly identified a fingerprint at the scene of the Marion Ross murder in Kilmarnock as that of Shirley McKie and how many disagreed with this identification.

Cathy Jamieson: In February 1997, 12 SCRO fingerprint officers were invited to examine the mark Y7 that was found at the scene of Marion Ross’ murder. Ten officers were satisfied that mark Y7 could be eliminated from the inquiry into the murder because it was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. Two officers did not reach a conclusion either way: one of those officers preferred to examine the print under a magnifying glass before giving a view and the other preferred to examine it in daylight. Neither completed the comparison. None of the officers who examined Y7 and who reached a conclusion on it disagreed with the elimination identification.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it (a) has always been and (b) is currently the policy of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) that any disagreements within it in relation to the identification of a fingerprint have to be reported to (i) the police and (ii) the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; what disciplinary procedures exist for failure by SCRO officers to adhere to this policy; how many instances there have been since January 1997 where the policy has not been followed; how many officers have been disciplined for failing to follow the procedure or implement the policy properly; whether the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service can bring charges against any SCRO officer who breaches this policy; whether this policy has always been implemented and, if not, what the reasons are for the position on the matter and in what cases it has not been implemented; in how many cases since January 1997 a prosecution has proceeded where there has been such a disagreement and whether it will list all such cases; how many cases have not been prosecuted because of such a disagreement, and in how many cases there was a conviction.

Cathy Jamieson: The policy, which has been in place since before January 1997, is that if a disagreement arises between fingerprint officers during the identification or verification process then the Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS) would not declare that an identification had been made.

  We are not aware of instances in which the policy has not been followed and so disciplinary procedures have not been invoked. The staff in the SFS are employed by the Joint Police Board of the area where they work, (Grampian, Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde and Tayside) and as such they are subject to the disciplinary policies of their employers.

  If an employer believes that an employee is involved in criminal behaviour the matter should be referred to the police for investigation.

  There have not been any cases since January 1997 where a disagreement has occurred and a prosecution has proceeded, nor have there been any cases in which prosecution did not proceed because of a disagreement within SCRO.

Justice

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether advice has been provided to the Minister for Justice by any civil servant in the Justice Department in relation to the decision to settle the civil action raised by Shirley McKie in the Court of Session for damages to the sum of £750,000; whether the decision to pay this sum was considered to fall within the terms of paragraph 8.3 of the Memorandum of Accountable Officers from the Principal Accountable Officer under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, namely that the proposed decision to settle the action in this way raised an issue not of formal propriety or regularity but relating to wider responsibilities for economy, efficiency and effectiveness, such as value for money, and whether the minister’s attention was drawn to the relevant facts in respect of value-for-money issues during the course of the action.

Cathy Jamieson: The Justice Department provided advice to ministers having taken full account of the Memorandum to Accountable Officers from the Principal Accountable Officer and the Scottish Public Finance Manual .

  At all times ministers have been mindful of the need for any settlement to be defensible in terms of the public purse and advice to ministers took account of value for money issues including the cost of proceeding to a five week proof and the prospects of recovering any award of expenses that might have been made against Ms McKie. At one point, Ms McKie was seeking a settlement of £1.2 million with backdated interest on top. The £750,000 settlement which includes interest is considerably less than that figure.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, what evidence it has that the misidentification was made in good faith and was not malicious.

Cathy Jamieson: Lord Hodge accepted in his opinion on 30 March that there was conflicting evidence from independent experts over the match between fingerprint Y7 and Ms McKie’s print and in those circumstances it was reasonable for Scottish ministers to maintain that the identification by SCRO officers had been made in good faith and was not malicious.

Justice

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of recently reported allegations anent plans to undermine the Wilson government in the 1960s, whether it holds any intelligence regarding potential subversive activity to undermine the democracy of Scotland by (a) senior British military officers and (b) the British Security Service and, if so, what that intelligence is.

Cathy Jamieson: In line with established practice, it would not be appropriate to comment on operational matters relating to the Security and Intelligence Service.

Justice

Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many cases referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in a convicted person having their conviction overturned.

Cathy Jamieson: The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was established by statute on 1 April 1999. The following table provides information on all applications received by the SCCRC since its establishment until 31 March 2006 for review of convictions and sentence and the outcome of these applications.

  

Applications received
783


Concluded 
696


Cases referred
57


of which conviction
34


of which sentence
23


Determined by High Court
36


of which successful appeal
23


of which conviction
14


of which sentence
9


of which unsuccessful
10


of which abandoned
3



  Details of these successful conviction and sentence cases, including in some cases the texts of the written judgements, can be found on the Commission’s website:

  http://www.sccrc.org.uk/referred-cases/index.htm.

Justice

Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive in how many cases considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission convictions have been overturned because of doubts over the police investigation into the original offence.

Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive in how many cases considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission convictions have been overturned because the police did not inform either the Crown or the court of all material facts relating to their investigation.

Cathy Jamieson: The information requested is not readily available in the form requested. The circumstances mentioned in the question would normally be classified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) as "disclosure of evidence" or "new evidence", but these classifications would also include other reasons for referral. Of the 14 successful appeals against conviction, the reason for referral was recorded as "disclosure of evidence" in respect of one case and as "new evidence" in respect of nine cases.

  Once a case has been referred by the SCCRC, it is for the appellant to frame the grounds of appeal. These may not reflect the original grounds of referral. It cannot therefore be assumed that any appeal is granted on the ground upon which it is referred.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23155 by Cathy Jamieson on 20 March 2006, whether John MacLeod, the author of the MacLeod reports referred to in the answer, has been asked whether he would agree to his reports being published; if so, what his response was, and, if not, whether the Executive will consider seeking his agreement to publish the reports as soon as possible.

Cathy Jamieson: Mr MacLeod has indicated that it is for the Executive to decide whether or not to waive confidentiality and to publish any report given by him. For the reasons given in my answer to question S2W-23155 on 20 March 2006, I do not propose to publish any reports commissioned for the purpose of the civil action brought by Shirley McKie.

  All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many people have been detained by the police under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 since the act came into force, broken down by police force; with what offences they were charged; what average length of time they were held under the act, and how many were held in (a) prison, (b) hospital and (c) other secure accommodation.

Cathy Jamieson: The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 came into effect on 5 October 2005. Police do not have the power to detain people under this legislation and, where persons are charged and receive a mental health disposal they will not end up in prison. The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which has a duty to monitor the operation of the 2003 act, is notified of all orders made under the act and may be able to provide further information.

Police

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what additional resources will be made available to Lothian and Borders Police to provide additional weekend policing in the communities of Armadale, Blackridge and Westfield.

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what additional resources will be made available to Lothian and Borders Police to implement its Youth Strategy Action Plan 2005-08.

Cathy Jamieson: The Lothian and Borders Joint Police Board has set a budget of over £185 million for Lothian and Borders Police in 2006-07. It is a matter for the Chief Constable to determine how these resources are used to meet local needs and pressures.

Police

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many high profile or VIP visits to Edinburgh since January 2003 have required the use of Lothian and Borders Police resources.

Cathy Jamieson: This information is not held centrally and is a matter for the Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police.

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-23748, S2W-23831, S2W-23835 and S2W-23994 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006 and given that the Executive has stated that it "has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through Scottish territory or airspace to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture", whether it will instigate an inquiry into the allegations that US agencies have facilitated such transfers using the process known as "extraordinary rendition" through Scottish airports, given that these allegations suggest that no approval was given to facilitate these transfers and thereby are in contravention of the Executive’s stated position.

Cathy Jamieson: The Scottish Executive is clear that no enquiry can be undertaken in response to unsubstantiated allegations.

  Should information come to light which the police regard as credible and reliable and indicating that criminal offences may have been committed, the police would be responsible for conducting an investigation. At present, no such information exists.

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23831 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006 where it states that it "has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through Scottish territory or airspace to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture", whether it will now discuss with Her Majesty’s Government the matter of CIA flights landing in Scotland, given that the original question did not pertain to whether it granted permission for such transfers to occur through Scotland but whether it would establish whether they happened at all.

Cathy Jamieson: Officials have discussed with UK Government Departments the allegations that Scottish airports have been used for the transportation of US prisoners to countries where they might be subjected to torture (so-called "extraordinary rendition"). The position remains as set out in my response to question S2W-20910, answered on 7 December 2005. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

  Since then, the Foreign Secretary set out the UK Government’s position in detail in a Written Ministerial Statement on 20 January 2006, including that:

  The UK Government found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or Overseas Territories since 11 September 2001.

  It found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or Overseas Territories since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of torture.

  There were four cases in 1998 where the US requested permission to render one or more detainees through the UK or Overseas Territories. Records show the Government granted the US request in two of these cases, and refused the request in the other two.

  The Government is clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace (including Overseas Territories) without the UK Government’s permission.

  In one of the two 1998 cases, in June 1998, a flight carrying Mohammed Rashid landed at Prestwick en route to the United States, where he was due to stand trial. He was charged for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in August 1982. He pleaded guilty to murder in December 2002 and is due to be sentenced shortly.

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23833 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006, whether the Minister for Justice’s statement that she suggested to Angus Robertson MP that "the author of the report take the information in the report to the police" indicates that it believes that there was credibility to this information.

Cathy Jamieson: It is not for ministers to judge the credibility, or otherwise, of the information in the report. That would appropriately be a matter for the police.

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23835 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006, how this answer indicates why it does not intend taking a position on the opinions expressed by Lord Steyn.

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23752 by Cathy Jamieson on 15 March 2006, why it had nothing to add to its previous answer to question S2W-22493, given that question S2W-23752 sought different information.

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23914 by Cathy Jamieson on 15 March 2006, how this answer indicates whether it, rather than the police, has received any "specific, credible information" supporting any allegation that US agencies have used Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights engaged in the process of "extraordinary rendition".

Cathy Jamieson: I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-23994 on 16 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why it has not stated what the purpose has been of its internal discussions regarding the matter of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of "extraordinary rendition" other than those "in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries".

Cathy Jamieson: As I made clear in my answer to question S2W-21574 on 22 December 2005, our internal discussions have focused on the handling of parliamentary questions and other enquiries. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has been required to contribute to any UK submission to the inquiry by Senator Marty into allegations that the CIA has illegally abducted and transported terror suspects across European borders.

Cathy Jamieson: The Scottish Executive has a strong record in contributing to the UK Government’s response to routine and ad hoc inquiries by international bodies on a variety of subjects, including torture. We also seek actively to develop our relationship with international human rights bodies independently of any inquiries.

  The current European inquiries about extraordinary rendition are focused on matters that are reserved to the UK Government. For this reason, in the case of Senator Marty’s questions, the UK Government in formulating its answers did not require any contribution from the Executive. Should Senator Marty, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe or the European Parliament’s temporary committee request information about devolved policies or practice, the Executive will be very happy to provide it.